The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. An alteration of a claim as to whether an application for alteration of a lawsuit is legitimate may be made until the closing of arguments in fact-finding proceedings within the extent that the basis of the claim is not altered, unless it substantially delays the litigation procedures;

There is no change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim that there is a difference in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute.

In addition, if most of the previous litigation data can be used for the examination of the new claim, it cannot be said that the litigation procedures may be significantly delayed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da56524 Decided March 12, 2009). According to the records, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the provisional registration of this case on the basis of the obligee’s subrogation right in the first instance court, and the registration of transfer of ownership of this case based thereon, based on the provisional registration of this case on the obligee’s subrogation right, but at the same time, the Plaintiff sought revocation on the ground that the legal act, which is the cause of the registration of transfer of ownership, constitutes a fraudulent act, and simultaneously changed the claim to seek cancellation of

Here, the plaintiff's claim before change and the changed claim are aimed at cancelling the same transfer registration, and the resolution method is different in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, so there is no change in the basis of the claim.

In addition, because most of the previous litigation data can be used for the deliberation of new claims, it cannot be said that the litigation procedures can be considerably delayed.

Therefore, the court below's decision on the changed claim is legitimate, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the modification of the purport of the claim.